FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 3, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 69 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cv -0 05 62 -DAB GORDONNA MARIE WALKER, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 3, 2 01 0) Befo re BLACK, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Gor do nn a Walke r ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er af firm in g the So ci al Secu rit y Co m m is si on er’s d en ia l o f he r ap pl ic at io n fo r di sabi li ty ins ur an ce b en efi ts an d s up pl em en ta l s ecu rit y in co m e (“ SSI” ) be ne fit s. Onap pe al , W al ke r arg ue s tha t th e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (“ ALJ”) an d the App eal s C ou nc il fai le d t o p ro pe rly ad dr es s ev id en ce o f th e si de effe ct s o f he r m ed ic at io ns . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND In20 05 , W al ke r fi le d a n app li cat io n fo r di sabi li ty andSSI b en efi ts all eg in g anon se t d at e o f Apr il 15 , 20 02 . W al ke r al le ge d tha t s he was d is ab le d due to arthr it is , pai n i n h er n eckan d l owe r ba ck , kn ee p ai n, d iabe te s m el li tu s, as th m a, ob es ity an d d ep res si on . A. Medi ca l Rec or ds W al ke r’s m ed ic al reco rd s i nd ic at e th atbe twee n J anuary 20 06 an d Sep te m be r 20 08 , W al ke r was tre at edfor , in te r al ia , nec k p ai n, h ig h b lo odpre ss ur e, hypo th y ro id is m , dep res si on , anddi ab et es . Am on g the sym pt om s Walk er so m et im es rep orte d t o h er d oc to rs were wei gh t g ai n, h ead ach es , m us cl e an d jo in t pa in , bl urredvi si on , che stpa in , sh ortn es s o f br eath, fa ti gu e, naus ea, d iarrh ea, fev er an d s or e th ro at . Howev er, n on e o f W al ke r’s tre at in g p hysic ians in di cat ed th atan y of t he se sym

pt om s wer e at tri bu te d t o Walk er’s m ed ic at io ns or n ot edan y co m pl ai nt s o r co nc ern s ab ou t m ed ic at io n s id e eff ect s. Ontwo oc cas io ns , W al ke r 2rep orte d h av in g h al lu ci na ti on s an d t ol d h er d oc to r th atwhen sh e d is co nt in ue d

ta ki ng W el lb ut rin (pr es cri be d fo r he r de pr es si on ), th e h al lu ci na ti on s s to pp ed . B. Repo rts to S oc ia l Se curi ty Adm in is tra tio n BetweenNov em

be r 20 05 an d S ep te m

be r 20 07 , W al ke r subm it te d aser ie s o f di sabi li ty repo rts , whi cham on g o th er thi ng s l is te d h er m ed ic at io ns an d s id e effe ct s. Ina Nov em

be r 20 05 di sabi li ty repo rt, Walk er re po rte d t ak in g n in e di ffer en t m ed ic at io ns , bu t l is te d n o s id e eff ect s fr om an y of the m . In aMarc h

1 20 06 di sabi li ty repo rt, Walk er re po rte d t ak in g twelv e m ed ic at io ns an d s ta te d tha t he r si de effe ct s i nc lu de d dro wsi ne ss , di arrh ea, n au se a, ed em a, dry m ou th , di zzi ne ss , hea da ch es , in crea se d h eartrat e, an d c ou gh in g. In aJune 20 06 rep ort, 2 W al ke r’s on ly repo rte d m ed ic at io n s id e effe ctwas dro wsi ne ss cau se d b y two m ed ic at io ns . In aSep te m be r 20 07 di sabi li ty repo rt, Walk er l is te d n in e 3 m ed ic at io ns an d s ta te d s he was n otex pe rie nc in g a ny sid e eff ect s. Ad di ti on al ly, in Walker reported takingDiovan for hy perte nsion, Sy

nthroid for hy

pothy roidism, Xanax 1 for depression and a

nx iety , Restoril for insomnia, L ortab for chronic pain, Soma as a muscle relax er, Mobic f

or ar thritis, Neurontin for c hronic pa in and Methylprednisone. Walker reported takingNeur ontin for pain; Glucopha g e, Ava ndia and Glipizide for 2 diabetes; Diova

n and Clonodine and Hydrochlorthiazide for hy perte nsion; S y

nthroid for hy pothy roidism; L ipitor for high cholester ol; Zoloft f or depr ession and anxiety ; and Albuterol and Azmacor

t for asthma. A ccor ding to Walker , the Neur ontin caused dr owsiness; the Glucophag e ca

used diarr hea a nd nausea ; the Avandia c aused e dema; the Clonidine ca used dry mouth, drowsiness, nausea and dizz iness; the L ipitor caused he adac hes; the Albuterol c aused incre ased he art rate and c ough; and the Azmacor t cause d dry

mouth and throat and c ough. Walker reported that Clonidine and Amitriptyline cause d drowsiness. 3 3a que st io nn ai re co m pl et edon Nov em

be r 11 , 20 05 , W al ke r no te d tha t h er m ed ic at io ns m ad e h er fe el gro gg y , clu m sy, tire d, m oo dy, “ so m et im es a li tt le di so rie nt ed ,” an d s om et im es gave he r st om ach pro bl em s. C. Hea ri ng Tes timony At an Octo be r 21 , 20 08 he ari ng , W al ke r te st ifi edab ou t h er m ed ic al im pa irments . W al ke r de sc rib edhe r subjec ti ve co m pl ai nt s, s uc h a s p ai n i n h er ha nd s an d kne es , m

us cl e sp as m s, i nabi li ty to s le ep , so ci al is ol at io n, p oo r m em ory an d c on cen tra ti on , andoc cas io na l v is ua l h al lu ci na ti on s. Walk er s ai d tha t m ed ic at io ns he lp edli m ithe r ha ll uc in at io ns to on ce ev ery few week s, b utth atsh e co ul d n otalwa y s af

fo rdth e m ed ic at io ns . She als o was ab le to ig no re the ha ll uc in at io ns when th ey oc curred . W al ke r te st ifi edab ou t v ari ou s o th er m ed ic at io ns sh e was tak in g a nd whe th er the y

were ef fect iv e. Whe n a sk edwhet he r sh e h adan y si de effe ct s fr om he r m ed ic at io ns , W al ke r res po nd ed , “ So m et im es with the he ad ach es . I getdi zzy so m et im es .” W al ke r was no t s ur e whi chm ed ic at io n c au se d h er d iz zi ne ss . D. ALJ ’s Deci si on The ALJ is su eda de ci si onde nyin g Walk er’s ap pl ic at io n. Us in g the fiv est ep seque nt ia l p ro ces s fo r an al yzi ng di sabi li ty clai m s, the ALJ fo un d, atst ep on e, th atW al ke r ha d n oten ga ge d i n s ub st an ti al ga in fu l ac ti vi ty sin ce Ap ril 15 , 20 02 , 4an d, atst ep two , th atW al ke r su ffer edfro m th e fo ll owi ng sev ere i m

pa irments : po ly-arth rit is with h is to ry of rhe um at oi d a rth rit is , bi late ral kn ee p ai n, hypert en si on , di ab et es m el li tu s, h y pe rth oi dr oi di sm

co nt ro ll edwith m ed ic at io n, cerv ic al de ge ne rat iv e joi ntdi se as e, hi st ory of c hr on ic ob st ru ct iv e p ul m on ary di se as e, hi st ory

of c on ge st iv e h eartfai lu re, m orbi d o be si ty, an d t ob acco ab us e. The ALJ refe ren ced , in te r al ia , ele ve n m ed ic at io ns pre sc rib edfor W al ke r. At s te p th ree, the ALJ fo un d tha t the co m bi na ti on of Walk er’s i m

pa irments di d n otm eet orequa l a l is te d i m

pa irment. At s te p fo ur , th e ALJ fo un d tha t Walk er h adth e res idua l func ti on al cap aci ty to pe rfo rm

li gh t wo rk . The ALJ n ot edsp eci fic al ly tha t wh enass es si ng th e cred ib il ity

of Walk er’s s ta te m en ts reg ard in g h er s ym pt om s, h e was requi redto co ns id er, i nt er al ia , th e type, d os ag e, effe ct iv en es s, an d s id e eff ect s o f an y m ed ic at io n tha t s he was t ak in g o r ha d t ak ento all ev ia te pa in or o th er s ym pt om s. The ALJ su m

m ari zedW al ke r’s te st im on y , no ti ng th at(1) W al ke r’s m ed ic at io n fo r hi gh bl oo d p res su re s om et im es m ad e h er d iz zy an d c au se d h ead ach es , (2) W al ke r ha d b eenpre sc rib edEffex oran d El av il an d t oo k Lo rtab fo r pa in , and(3) whi le sh e oc cas io na ll y

ex pe rie nc edha ll uc in at io ns , sh e h adlearn edto ig no re the se ep is od es . The ALJ fo un d tha t Walk er’s m ed ic al ly det erm in ab le im pa irments co ul d reas on ab ly be ex pe ct edto pro du ce the sym pt om s s he all eg ed . Howev er, the ALJ 5co nc lu de d tha t Walk er’s “ st at em en ts co nc ern in g the in te ns ity , per si st en ce an d

li mit in g e ffec ts of t he se sym pt om s [we re] no t en ti rel y cred ib le .” The ALJno te d th atW al ke r’s te st im on y

as t o the sev eri ty of he r sym pt om s was in co ns is te ntwith se ve ral ph y si ci an s’s o pi ni on s (i nc lu di ng he r tr eat in g p hysic ian) th atsh e was ab le to pe rfo rm

li gh t t o m ed iu m

ex ert io na l wo rk , herrep orte d ra ng e o f act iv it ie s o f da il y li vi ng an d h er l ackof c om pl ai nt s i n h er m ed ic al reco rd s. Acco rd in gl y , th e ALJ co nc lu de d tha t Walk er “ ret ai n[ ed ] th e cap aci ty for l ig htex ert io n, co ns is te nt with h er re si du al fun ct io na l capa ci ty,” whic h i nc lu de d h er p as t re le va ntworkas a n of fic e cl erkan d c as hi er. Thu s, the ALJ co nc lu de d tha t Walk er was no t d is ab le d. E. Appea ls Coun ci l W al ke r reque st edrev ie w by th e App eal s C ou nc il , arg ui ng th atth e ALJ h ad fai le d t o m ak e fi nd in gs as t o the effe ct s o f W al ke r’s m ed ic at io ns onhe r ab il ity to work. Walk er s ub mit te d p harm acy info rm at io n s he et s an d e xc erp ts fro m th e Ph y si ci an s’ DeskRefe ren ce tha t l is te d the kn own si de effe ct s fo r so m e o f th e m ed ic at io ns sh e was tak in g. 4 Init s No ti ce o f App eal s C ou nc il Acti on , th e App eal s C ou nc il : (1 ) ex pl ai ne d th atitwou ldgra nta reque stforrev ie w if i t re cei ve d “ ne w andm at eri al ev id en ce Specifica lly , Walker submitted information for Me tformin (nause a), Clonidine 4 (drowsine ss and dry

mouth), Hydrochlorothiazide (dizzi ness), Ve nlafax ine (na usea, dizzi ness, dry mouth and insomnia), Sy nthroid (hea dache , diarrhe a and insomnia).

6an d the de ci si on is co nt rary to the weig htof a ll th e ev id en ce n ow i n the reco rd ”;

(2 ) no te d tha t i t h adrece iv edan d c on si de redW al ke r’s ne w evi de nc e, whi chit m ad e p artof t he reco rd ; an d (3 ) de ni edW al ke r’s reque stforrev ie w bec au se it

“ fo un d tha t thi s i nf

orm at io n d oe s n otpro vi de a ba si s fo r ch an gi ng th e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e’s de ci si on .” F. Dis tri ct Co urt Pro ceed in gs W al ke r so ug htjud ic ia l re vi ew in th e d is tri ctco urt, ar gu in g, i nt er al ia , th at th e ALJ an d the App eal s C ou nc il ha d n otm ad e th e n eces sa ry fin di ng s an d h adno t ap pl ie d the co rrec t l eg al st an da rdwith re ga rdto he r m ed ic at io n s id e eff ect s. Th e di st ric t co urt af

firm edth e Co m

m is si on er’s d eci si on . W al ke r ap pe al edto th is Co urt. II . DISCUSSI ON A. Sta nda rds for Ev al ua tin g Me di ca tio n Si de Ef fect s Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r a cl ai m an t’s i m pa irments li mithe r ab il ity to work , th e ALJ co ns id ers th e cl ai m an t’s s ub jecti ve sym

pt om s, wh ic h i nc lu de s the effe ct iv en es s an d s id e eff ect s o f an y

m ed ic at io ns tak enforth os e sym pt om s. 2 0 C.F.R. § § 4 04 .15 29 (c)( 3) (iv ), 41 6.9 29 (c)( 3) (iv ). W e h av e co nc lu de d tha t, u nd er cert ai n c irc um st an ces , an ALJ ’s du ty to d ev el op a fu ll reco rdcanin cl ud e in ve st ig at in g the si de effe ct s o f m ed ic at io ns . Com pa re Co wartv. Sc hwe ik er, 6 62 7F.2 d 7 31 , 73 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 1) (co nc lu di ng th atALJ fai le d t o fu ll y de ve lo p re co rd whe re p ro se c la im an t t es ti fie d tha t s he to okeig htdi ffer en t p res cri pt io n m ed ic at io ns an d was “ ki ndof z on ke d m os t o f th e ti m e” an d ALJfai le d t o e ithe r el ic ittes ti m on y

or m ak e fi nd in gs reg ard in g e ffec t o f m ed ic at io ns on he r ab il ity to work) , with P as so pu lo s v . Sul li va n, 9 76 F.2d64 2, 6 48 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (co nc lu di ng th atALJ d idno t fa il to de ve lo p re co rdwher e cl ai m an t d idno t p res en t ev id en ce h e was tak in g m ed ic at io n tha t caus edsi de effe ct s) , andCh erry v. Heck le r, 76 0 F .2d11 86 , 11 91 n.7 (11 thCir . 19 85 ) (co nc lu di ng Secr et ary, up on reo pe ni ng , di d n otha ve du ty to fu rth er i nv es ti ga te si de effe ct s o f co un se le d cl ai m an t’s m ed ic at io ns wher e cl ai m an t d idno t al le ge si de effe ct s co nt rib ut edto he r di sabi li ty andst at edon ly tha t h er m ed ic at io n m ad e h er dro wsy). Howev er, the ALJ’s ob li ga ti on to de ve lo p the reco rddo es no t re li ev e th e cl ai m an t o f th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g s he is di sabl ed . Elli so n v . Barn ha rt, 3 55 F.3d 12 72 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Thu s, the cla im an t m us t i nt ro du ce ev id en ce supp orti ng he r cl ai m

th athe r sym

pt om s (i nc lu di ng any

m ed ic at io n s id e eff

ect s) m ak e h er u nabl e to work . See i d. B. ALJ ’s Deci si on Here, the ALJ ap pl ie d the co rrec t l eg al st an da rd s an d a de qu at el y de ve lo pe d th e rec or d re ga rd in g the effe ctof Walk er’s s ym pt om s, i nc lu di ng m ed ic at io n s id e 8effe ct s, o n h er ab il ity to work . Duri ng th e h eari ng , W al ke r was ask edab ou t h er m ed ic at io ns an d a ny sid e eff ect s. Th e o nl y

si de effe ct s Walk er s ai d s he ex pe rie nc edwere d iz zi ne ss an d h ead ach es . The ALJ n ot edth is tes ti m on y inhi s de ci si on an d a ls o c orrect ly stat edth atm ed ic at io n s id e eff ect s ar e rel ev an t t o, an d sh ou ldbe ex am in edinass es si ng , th e cl ai m an t’s s ub jecti ve sym

pt om s. Th e ALJ al so no te d tha t Walk er h adco m pl ai ne d t o h er treat in g p hysic ians ab ou t, am on g ot he r th in gs , hea da ch es an d d iz zi ne ss . The ALJ fo un d tha t al th ou gh W al ke r’s m ed ic al ly det erm in ab le im pa irments co ul d re as on ab ly be ex pe ct edto pro du ce the sym pt om s s he all eg ed , W al ke r’s st at em en ts co nc ern in g the in te ns ity , per si st en ce an d l im it in g e ffec ts of h er s ym pt om s wer e “ no t en ti rel y

cred ib le ,” a fi nd in g tha t en co m pa ss edhe r te st im on y

ab ou t h er s id e eff

ect s. 5 Furth erm or e, gi ve n the reco rd , th e ALJ was no t u nd er a dut y to eli ci t fu rth er in fo rm at io n abo utW al ke r’s m ed ic at io n s id e eff ect s. No th in g i n Walk er’s te st im on y su gg es te d tha t h er h ead ach es an d d iz zi ne ss were s ev ere e no ug h t o b e di sabl in g e ithe r al on e o r inco m bi na ti on with h er o th er i m pa irments . Apartfro m he r own subjec ti ve st at em en ts , th ere i s n o e vi de nc e inth e rec or d tha t an y of W al ke r’s ot he r sym

pt om s ac tu al ly w ere c au se d b y he r m ed ic at io ns . A con su lt in g, ex am in in g p hysic ian n ot edth atW al ke r’s sym pt om s wer e “po ss ib ly perp etua te d b y Walker does not cha lleng e on appe al the AL J ’s adve rse c redibility finding . 5 9ex ces si ve weig ht .” Add it io na ll y , m ed ic al reco rd s fr om W al ke r’s tre at in g ph y si ci an s re fle ctth atwhi le sh e co m pl ai ne d o f m an y

sym pt om s, s he di d n otrep ort an y of t he m as m ed ic at io n s id e eff

ect s o th er tha n o ccas io na l h al lu ci na ti on s s he be li ev edwere caus edby W el lb ut rin . The ALJ e xp li ci tl y fou ndth atth e ha ll uc in at io ns W al ke r ex pe rie nc ed– wh ic h Walk er t es ti fie d wer e h el pe d b y m ed ic at io n, b utwhi chsh e p rev io us ly hadto ldhe r tr eat in g p hysic ian wer e cau se d by W el lb ut rin – wer e n otdi sabl in g b ecau se th ey las te d o nl y

on e o r two min ut es an d Walk er h adlea rn edto ig no re the m . C. Appea ls Coun ci l’s Deni al of Re vi ew If, in reque st in g re vi ew, a cl ai m an t s ub m it s n ew an d m at eri al ev id en ce tha t rel at es to th e p eri odon or b efo re the ALJ’s de ci si on , th e App eal s C ounc il is requi redto co ns id er i t. See 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 70 (b ). The Ap pe al s C ounc il co ns id ers th e en ti re re co rd , in cl ud in g the ne w evi de nc e, an d “ wil l the n re vi ew th e cas e if itfin ds th atth e [ALJ’s] act io n, fi nd in gs , or c on cl us io n i s co nt rary to the weig htof the ev id en ce cu rren tl y of r eco rd .” Id . Whe n the App eal s C ou nc il de ni es rev ie w bas edon ne w evi de nc e, “ a rev ie win g c ou rt m us t co ns id er wh ethe r th atne w ev id en ce re nd ers th e d en ia l o f be ne fit s erro ne ou s.” In gr am v. Co m m ’r of So c. Sec. Adm in ., 49 6 F .3d12 53 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Here, the App eal s C ou nc il acce pt edW al ke r’s ne w evi de nc e, bu t d en ie d 10rev ie w bec au se itdi d n otpro vi de a ba si s fo r ch an gi ng th e ALJ’s d eci si on . W e

ag ree. Th e p ha rm acy info rm at io n s he et s an d e xc erp ts fro m th e Ph y si ci an s’ Desk Refe ren ce s ho wedon ly tha t the sym pt om s Walk er t es ti fie d s he expe rie nc edwere kn own so m et im es to be cau se d b y th e m ed ic at io ns sh e was tak in g. Th is ne w in fo rm at io n d idno t co nt rad ic t the ALJ’s fi nd in g tha t Walk er’s t es ti m on y as t o the se ve rit y of h er s ym

pt om s (i nc lu di ng he r si de effe ct s) was n oten ti rel y cred ib le an d th at , eve n wi thhe r sym

pt om s, s he ret ai ne d the ab il ity to pe rfo rm

li gh t ex ert io n co ns is te ntwith h er re si du al fun ct io na l capa ci ty. Becaus e th e p ha rm aco lo gi cal in fo rm at io n d idno t re nd er the ALJ’s de ci si on co nt rary to the weig htof t he ev id en ce as a who le , th e App eal s C ou nc il di d n oterr i n d eny in g re vi ew. AFFIRMED.

11